Monophoto

<p>Its hard to predict what the weather is going to be tomorrow, much less six months from now. That said, one needs to understand that New England can have snow any time between mid-November and late March.<br> With two possible reservations, it is likely that the roads will be clear and dry. Because winter weather is something that happens routinely in New England, the various jurisdictions are equipped to deal with storms and the roads are cleared within a few hour of the end of a storm.<br> The two reservations are <br> 1. Traveling during a storm can be tricky.. It is impossible to predict this far ahead if that is likely to happen. In most cases, storms last for only a few hours, there rae periods of days to weeks between serious storms, so at most you might encounter a short delay. Yes, I know you've probably seen the TV new reports about storms that last for days - but those are on the news because they are rare and therefore newsworthy.<br> 2. Road conditions on the major roads are generally predictable. However, if you venture off onto back grads, things can be different. Your itinerary sounds like you will be mainly staying on I-95, and my experience is that the traffic is likely to be more of a concern than road conditions.</p> <p>You should probably plan your trip carefully, and book ahead for lodging. This will be a holiday period, and if there weather is sufficiently winterish, lots of people will be traveling in the direction of ski resorts in New Hampshire and Maine. </p> <p>You asked about photographic opportunities. Keep in mind that you are talking about winter, which miens that its cold outside and some attractions will be closed. Some suggesitons:<br> Providence: the Brown University campus is interesting (and will be pretty much empty during that period). There is a river that passes through downtown Providence that has interesting walking paths and nighttime lighting - could be very nice with a little snow.<br> Southern Maine and New Hampshire - frankly, these are more appealing in the Summer. The area around Ogunquit is nice, and the marginal wak could be interesting (but very cold) - its right on the Atlantic and exposed to fierce wind) <br> Boston - you will likely find more here. Make a point of visiting Salem and Gloucester - they will be very quiet in the winter, but sill picturesque. Street scenes in Boston will be possible. I believe that the USS Institution is in drydock for a couple of years - I know that it's still open to visitors but I don't know how much you can see. Walk the Freedom Trail, stroll through the North End (Italian district - the smells from the restaurants will make you very hungry). Boston Common and the Public Garden will be open for strolling but the boats will be in storage for the winter.. Drive west on the Turnpike to Sturbridge - a historic recreation about an hour to the west. Plymouth is another possibility. Both are likely to be open because ithe week between Christmas and New Years is a major tourist period.</p>

<p>Cyanotype is very simple:<br> 1. Apply the sensitizing solution, and allow it to dry.<br> 2. Expose the paper using either sunlight or a UV light source.<br> 3. Wash the exposed paper to remove unexposed sensitizer.</p> <p>If all of the sensitizer is washing off, then you either aren't exposing it sufficiently or the sensitizer solution you are using is incorrect..</p> <p> </p>

<p>This subject has been debated for years.</p> <p>There are industry standards that define contrast grades for graded papers, but there are no standards defining grades of variable contrast filters. Furthermore, the contrast range that is achievable with graded papers is not the same as is possible with variable contrast papers. The thing to remember is that filter numbers and contrast grades are merely guides - ultimately, the thing that is important is the image you are producing. Fine printing is a process of trial and error.</p> <p>A set of new variable contrast filters provides the ability to modify the image contrast over a range. It doesn't matter what the brand of filters is, or what the paper brand is - all variable contrast papers operated on the principle of two emulsions, one sensitive to green light and the other sensitive to magenta light, and the image contrast in the print depends on the ratio of exposure to these two colors of light. Manufacturers can argue that their paper responds best to their filters - and that may technically be a true statement. But a careful printer can still use Brand X fi8lters with Brand Y papers to get outstanding prints - the thing that matters is the appearance of the final print.<br> <br />That said, there are two areas of concern. First, while the filters provided by one manufacturer will function is some progressive basis as you move from the lowest contrast filter to the highest contrast filter, there is no guarantee that the steps in contrast gradation will be the same if you switch to another brand of filters. So this leads to the general rule that it is unwise to intermix Brand X and Brand Y filters.. </p> <p>The other concern is that as filters age, they tend to fade, with the result that the range of contrasts change over time. What this means is that as the dyes that create the coloration in the filters fade, the range of contrasts that one can get from a set of filters will tend to compress. In addition, since the dyes may not fade uniformly, the step gradations may change over time. In most cases, the time period required to produce noticeable fading is rather long, so this is normally not something that most people worry about, and it is something that occurs so gradually that one tends to simply compensate for fading by subconsciously shift to higher grade filters.</p> <p>But that also suggests an important point that sort of negates both considerations - if the numbers on the filters don't really tell you anything more than the relative contrast available from various filters (ie, filter 3 produces a more contrasty print than filter 1), and if you make the decision about which filter to use based on the appearance of the print rather than that meaningless number on the filter, then it really doesn't matter if the filters fade. </p> <p>Furthermore, if you are making the filter choice based on the results you get rather than the number on the filter, you can get away with mixing Brand X and Brand Y filters. However, you do need to understand that because the gradations may not be the same in the two brands, the achievable steps in contrast won't be as uniform as is possible when using only one brand of filters. As a result, achieving that final print may take more trial and error than if you stick with one brand of filters.</p>

<p>I've always used a 10x loupe also, but the 'experts' claim that a lower power loupe is better.</p> <p>The problem with a powerful loupe is that it allows you to see details. If you are too focused on details, the overall composition can suffer. Also, there can be areas within the overall scene that are not well focused even though the area you studied with the loupe is. </p>

<p>If the lines are straing and parallel with the long edge of the film, the problem is likely due so an error in processing.</p> <p>Seems to me that some of these have curved lines - that suggests improper film handling. It's easy to buckle the film when loading the processing reel, and when that happens, the density of the film at the point where it was buckled will be greater than surrounding areas. </p>

<p>I've used mounts like that. The first requirement is that the film chip fit inside the shallow recess in the right half of the mount as shows in the picture. If the film chip is too large and doesn't fit entirely within that recess, then the faces of the mount won't close completely.</p> <p>Second, when you close the mount, the plastic posts on the right half of the must go onto the matching holes on the left half of the mount, and snap in place to hold the mount closed. </p> <p>I recall that when this kind of mount was used by commercial processors, the mount was heat-welded closed as Adrian described. Frankly, my experience was that this particular design wasn't extremely secure when they were just pressed closed. </p> <p>You might try applying the tiniest drop of CA glue to weld a couple of the posts into their matching holes. Just be careful that you don't use too much and have it seep onto the film chip.</p>

<p>Occam's razor says to look for the simplest explanation. Candidates include:<br> 1. Didn't push the release button.<br> 2. Inadvertently pulled the film completely out of the canister - rolling the canister spindle backwards won't do anything if the film is no longer attached to the spindle.</p> <p>(I've made both mistakes - several times).</p>

<p>I'm retired, but I am still able to use the corporate rental plan that my former employer set up with one of the major companies. That plan includes insurance. And like others have noted, my personal car insurance covers me when driving a rental car.</p> <p>But let me throw in another consideration. Like the airlines, rental car companies are looking for additional sources of revenue, and one of the tricks that they have recently created is a toll payment service. I think this started in the San Francisco area when the State eliminated toll collectors on the Golden Gate Bridge, going instead to an arrangement in which cars are expected to have automated transponders (EZPass, etc) for toll collection. There is a backup arrangement in which the license tag of each vehicle is photographed, and if there is no transponder payment, then an invoice is sent to the tag holder (with an additional service charge). </p> <p>The theory is that rental car companies will simply pass the toll and associated service charge on to renters. That's OK. But what has happened is that they have creates a 'service' of managing toll payments that they bill you for several weeks after you turn in the car - with Hertz, the charge for that service is $5 per day of rental on top of any tolls and service charges that you may have accumulated. So a single trip across the Golden Gate bridge adds $32 to the cost of a one-week rental.</p> <p>I don't know if there is any way to get around this new form of 'highway robbery'.</p>

<p>Looks like a light leak to me. </p> <p>You were using roll film. One of the 'known issues' with roll film is that if the camera doesn't roll the film tightly enough, you can get light leaks along the edges after you take the exposed film out of the camera. </p> <p>You have fogging on both edges of the film. A processing fault would likely present itself as underdevelopment along one edge only. Fogging on both edges suggests that the film roll wasn't tight enough and light was leaking around the plastic spool and into the edges of the film.</p> <p>In the distant past, Kodak always recommended loading and unloading cameras in shaded areas rather than in direct sun. That recommendation was specifically intended to reduce the risk of this kind of problem.</p>

<p>The one that works.</p> <p>Seriously, I always used my right eye until I lost vision due to a detached retina. So now I use my left eye.</p>

<p>This is a camera problem.</p> <p>What kind of camera was it? Could you have left the lens cap on?</p>

<p>Yeah - getting old ain't for sissies!</p> <p>I was heavily into large format photography and doing my own darkroom work when I experienced a detached retina. While it was possible to correct the problem anatomically, I was left with severely compromised vision in one eye. I can still see, read, watch TV and drive, but my close-range depth perception is trashed (making it exciting to pour a glass of wine). More importantly, it became very difficult for me to function with only a safelight.</p> <p>My solution was to abandon darkroom work (and large format). I bought a DSLR with autofocus and simply switched to other forms of photography. I find that my photographic vision (the ability to see potential photographs) wasn't impaired - just the ability to translate that initial vision into a final image in the darkroom. I'm making more color images than before, but I do continue to desaturate images to monochrome when that rings my creative bell.</p> <p>I think the point is that after nearly 40 years in photography, you really can't just walk away. Instead, you have to find other ways to exercise your photographic vision.</p> <p>Oh, and since I had more time on my hands, I took up woodturning.</p>

<p>Its really hard for me to see what is happening here because of the quality of the pictures. </p> <p>But it looks to me like the stripes run across the width of the film strip. I've been doing darkroom work for nearly 40 years, and I've never seen a problem with processing that causes that.</p> <p>The other thing that I think I see in the pictures is that the edges of the film (around the perforations) are as dark as the image area. This looks like the film was fogged. When I see fogged edges and stripes across the width of the film, the explanation that comes to mind is that the back of the camera was opened before the film was rewound into its canister.</p>

<p>You didn't say what kind of camera you will be using, or what time of day you will be there.</p> <p>If you are using a digital camera with image stabilization, you probably don't need the monopod, especially during daylight hours. My experience in remote areas of Belize (around Benque Viejo) is that there is so much light that long exposures are rarely needed.</p>

<p>Insufficient fixing.</p> <p>Don't rely on charts - clip a bit off the film leader, and put it in fixer to measure how long it takes to clear. Then, fix for twice that length of time. And if you are reusing the fixer, you will need to increase the fixing time to allow for deplenishment. When the extended time is twice the original 'twice the clearing' time, discard the fixer and start a fresh batch.</p>

<p>The starting point should be the rating established by the manufacturer.</p> <p>You certainly can establish a new rating, but the objective of doing that is to compensate for the variations introduced by YOUR shutter, YOUR lens, YOUR choice of chemicals, YOUR processing sequence (including how YOU agitate), YOUR desired contrast range target, and the way YOU will convert the negative to a print. In other words, because a personalized EI is PERSONALIZED, no one can tell you what to use.</p>

<p>Gregory Crewdson</p>

<p>Many years ago I saw George Krause demonstrate use of the #3 safelight filter in a workshop. I thought it was a neat concept, especially when combined with some of the other things that George did (he was a fan of negative intensification using either chromium or mercury). </p> <p>I later picked up a spare safelight and #3 filter at a flea market, but it never worked very well for me.</p>

<p>Sounds like they were also selling loupes.</p> <p>I've never used anything other than a generic loupe.</p> <p>If I understand the optics correctly (a big assumption there), the image is formed ON the surface of the ground glass. You use a loupe for two things - to inspect and preview the image, and to focus the image. In either case, where the loupe actually focuses is irrelevant. The image you see through the loupe doesn't have to be in sharp focus to be evaluated for composition (and the fact that the image is upside down and backwards helps you focus on the composition and not on the details in the image). And the objective of focusing is to get the image as sharp as possible. The fact that the image is always (and only) on the surface of the ground glass means that when you get it as sharp as you can visually see through the loupe (or whatever other means you use to view the ground glass), it's as sharp as possible on the ground glass. </p> <p>Obviously, the key here is that the surface of the ground glass must be in precisely the same plane that the film emulsion will be when the holder is inserted - but that's always important, regardless of what kind of loupe you are using.</p>

<p>The link shows that you have the following chemicals:<br> Ilford DD-X - a film developer - used to convert exposed silver emulsion to metallic silver<br> Ilford Ilfostop - a stop bath - used to stop development<br> Ilford Rapid Fixer - an ammonium thiosulfulate fixer - used to remove unexposed/unprocessed silver-based emulsion<br> Ilford Wash Aid - a fixer remover - used to convert the residual fixer into chemicals that more rapidly wash out of the film<br> Edwal Wetting Agent - used to reduce the surface tension of the final wash water so that you don't have water spots on the dried negatives</p> <p>You can put the Ilfostop aside - that chemical isn't really needed when processing film. You will need it if you make prints from the negatives that you create from your film.<br> There are four issues that you need to address. First, the mechanics of processing film. Film must be processed in total darkness, and normally is processed in so-called 'daylight' tanks that allow the film to be processed in ordinary room light. These tanks are designed to provide a totally dark environment for the film - you must load the film into the tank in total darkness, but then you can complete the process in a comfortable, well-lit setting. The design of the tank allows chemicals to go in and out without breaking that light seal.<br> The topic of mechanics also include agitation. When film is processed, it must be agitated so that the film is continually bathed in the processing chemical - simply immersing the film in the chemical causes a chemical reaction right at the surface of the film that quickly depletes the chemical in that immediate area. Agitation brings fresh chemical to that surface area. With most daylight tanks, agitation is a matter of inverting the tank, but there is a lot of art involved in the speed of inversion, and also how often the tank is inverted. Agitation must be intermittent with the developer; the most common recommendation is to agitate by repeated inversion for the first 30 seconds that a chemical is in the tank. With the other three chemicals, continuous agitation is actually better than intermittent agitation. I suggest agitating in the first three chemicals, but you should allow the film to simply sit in the Edwal wetting agent. <br> Second is the issue of dilution. The best advice is to follow the instructions on the package. Ilford has excellent instructions printed right on the labels of the liquid concentrates, and you can also find dilution information on the internet. <br> The one exception is that I suggest doubling the amount of water used to dilute the wetting agent. <br> Third is the issue of timing. The duration of time that the film must spend in each chemical depends on the film that is being processed. Since you didn't indicate which black and white film you want to process, I can't suggesting timing. The time in the developer, in particular, is very critical, and is also related to the frequency and vigor of agitation. And the time in developer governs contrast, and targeting specific contrast is one of your creative choices.<br> Finally, there is the matter of drying. The film must be allowed to dry in a clean environment so that dust cannot settle on it to ruin your negatives. Drying time depends on the temperature and humidity in the environment; in a typical room, the drying time is probably 8-12 hours, but can be accelerated significantly using a heated film drying cabinet.</p>

<p>I travel to Canada on business occasionally. My experience is that you can generally use US currency in the large cities close to the border (Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, for example). However, when you make a purchase using US currency, you will rarely get US currency as change - instead, you will usually get Canadian currency.<br> <br />But as you get further from the border, you will find that Canadian currency will be expected, and US currency likely will be refused. Don't try using greenbacks in Fort McMurray or Labrador City! </p> <p>The same thing applies to Canadians traveling in the US.</p> <p>My view is that when US Citizens are in Canada, we are guests, and we need to act the same way we would if we were the guests in someone's home. Rather than demanding that Canadians do something marginally illegal by accepting US currency, I always use local currency. I use a credit card wherever possible whenever traveling outside the US. The credit card exchange rate is about the best that you can get, and the convenience is fabulous. Obviously, you do need some incidental currency. For that, I go to an ATM. </p> <p>And I always call both the credit card and ATM card company before the trip to let them know where I will be and for how long. These companies have some very sophisticated anti-fraud algorithms that they use to validate usage, and the last thing that I need while traveling is to have the credit card company close down my card because I'm using it in a way that conflicts with my normal usage pattern.</p>

<p>For film, it is perfectly acceptable to use a water rinse as a stop bath. In fact, in the past there were specific reasons why that was preferred (factors that don't apply with modern materials).</p> <p>Mix the fixer following the instructions on the package. After developer and rinse/stop, pour the fixer into the tank and agitate. Because you are using TMY, you will need to fix for a longer period of time than is normally recommended - with ordinary sodium hyposulfate fixer (which is what is packaged as a dry powder), your fixing time could be as long as 10 minutes, or perhaps longer depending on agitation and temperature.</p> <p>After the film has been in the fixer for a minute or so you can examine it in ordinary room light. The thing you want to look for is a whitish haze - that haze will initially appear over the entire width and length of the strip of film, but as the fixing proceeds, you will see that haze start to clear, starting with the edges. Fix until that haze disappears ENTIRELY, and then continue to fix for at least as long as it took for the haze to clear. That is, if the haze clears in five minutes, the film should stay in the fixer for 10 minutes.<br> <br> The developer will be a 'one shot' - use and dispose. But you will be able to use the fix again. However, the time for it to clear the haze on the next roll will be longer than on the first roll. You need to understand that the purpose of the fixer is to remove the unexposed and undeveloped silver in the emulsion in the film. What that means is that as fixer is reused, is will accumulate silver. Eventually, it will contain so much silver that it won't be able to remove any more. The general rule is that when the 'clearing time' increases to twice the time for the first roll of film, you should dispose of the used fixer.</p>

<p>It is generally not recommended that packaged developers that are manufactured as dry powders be mixed in anything less than the design quantity. The reason for that is that when dissolving dry chemicals, there is no way to assure that the constituent components are in the intended proportions unless you mix the entire package. Dry powders can and will separate as the packages are handled.</p> <p>However, if you purchase chemicals as liquid concentrates, it is perfectly acceptable to mix only enough for a single use because liquid concentrates will be homogenous. </p> <p>Also, you should be aware that some darkroom chemicals can safely be reused, while others are best used 'one shot' (ie, one use and then dispose). In a small darkroom, developers are best used as one-shot chemicals. There is a process called 'replenishment' that allows developers to be reused, but it is inconvenient and only makes sense in a high-volume commercial darkroom. A second consideration with developers is that they generally don't store well. Developers will gradually oxidize over time, causing them to lose effectiveness. This is generally not a problem with the original liquid concentrates because they are concentrated, but it is a significant problem with working strength developers.</p> <p>Stop bath and hypoclear are also chemicals that are best used and then disposed. They are also very inexpensive, so the cost of tossing it after a single use makes that practical.</p> <p>On the other hand, fixers and toners can be reused until they are exhausted, and they also tend to store well. </p>

<p>Enrique -</p> <p>Cape Cod is a big place, but except for a few notable areas, it's not a place for grand landscapes. That means that photographic subjects tend to be smaller, and have to be searched for. The most readily accessible areas of Cape Cod are pretty heavily populated, so if you are looking to do photography, you would need to seek out some of the less obvious areas. As John H. said, the Outer Cape (roughly Brewster/Chatham and beyond) would be the place to look.</p> <p>I happen to like the Cape a lot - we've been going there every year for 40+ years. But if you only have a few days, then I think that you might find the Cape disappointing. The Cape is really a place for exploring.</p> <p>I'm not familiar with the White Mountains. But I agree with Donald's suggestion about Maine. If you are limited in time, the Kennebunk area is OK, but my preference is to go further north to Penobscot Bay. Rockport (MA) is a photographer's paradise; Pemaquid Point is also nice. Acadia is spectacular, but it's pretty far north. </p> <p>But there are some really nice things much closer to Boston. Boston itself is a fabulous city. Cambridge is a lot of fun (and great for people watching). Salem has a lot of history. Rockport (MA) and Gloucester are both very photographable.</p>

<p>1. Absolutely - if you apply it on the emulsion side, it will be absorbed into the emulsion. If you put it on the back, it can be washed off if you change your mind. But a better approach is to make a sandwich with a second sheet of film that has been unexposed but fully developed, washed and fixed. That way, you will have two thicknesses of film backing between the image layer in the negative and the dye layer - when you focus on the negative, the dye layer will be very slightly out of focus. That way, any imperfections in the dye won't transfer to the print. And if you change your mind, you can remove the dye without rewashing your negative.</p> <p>2. Yes. I allow a few drops of dye to dry on a white plastic plate, and then use a damp brush to pick up dye, smear it around on another area of the plate, add some water to thin it a bit, etc. It takes some practice to develop the skill, but it's really not that difficult.</p> <p>I would be cautions about using the term 'contrast' to describe the variations that result from dilution. Contrast has a very specific meaning in photographic speak. Instead, I would term those variations in dye density. But yes, using a less dilute dye will result in less dye density.</p>